Health Reform: Reid To The Rescue, But Whose?

Lately Senate Majority Leader Reid has been talking the talk about walking the walk on including a public option in the Senate version of health care reform.  This is surprising, since many (including me) had thought months ago that any hope of the much-needed public option was dead in the contemporary political environment.  Can Reid really be the Knight In Shining Armor who rides to the rescue of the public option maiden? 

I doubt it.  Physically, Reid seems an unlikely knight (he looks more like that old Cervantes hero, "Donkey Hoadie") and his quest appears as quixotic as he does.  The token Republican supporter of the Senate Finance Committee package, Senator Snowe of Maine, has already suggested she'd drop out.  Of course the idea of using her to claim the bill is bipartisan is preposterous anyway and should be abandoned, but a vote is a vote and hers may be needed.  More important are other voices, including some on the Democratic side, who remain recalcitrant (more donkey talk, but hey, these are Democrats, right?).

I'd be happy to applaud if Reid can bring it off, but Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank probably has the right angle on this one.  He argues that Reid's announcement about the public option is largely a political move aimed at helping him, Reid, get reelected next year.  He'll get credit with his constituents for having tried, even if the effort is doomed to fail.   

Comments

[Joseph Lott]

I think this opt out strategy is a politically smart move. It makes the public option decision a state one (ie more local) and reduces the need for each Senator to oppose the bill because of the public option. Whether Majority Leader is a hero or not depends on how many arms he can twist and how well he can count the votes of his caucus. For me, this raises the question of why it takes 60% passage in the Senate to do what the House only requires 51% to get done. I think this is one of the bottle necks of governemnt that ought to be fixed. The House produced 4 competing versions of this bill months ago.

[Jhawk23]

Yes, I like the state opt-out as a possible workaround. I like the "trigger" idea even better because it puts the focus right where it needs to be -- on whether the insurance companies are cleaning up their act or not. Either idea, though, has to get passed first, and I'm just not seeing the votes out there yet. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102702465.html?hpid=topnews for example. Maybe if enough people in certain states make clear their interest in a public plan...

On that other issue, I seem to recall that the percentage required to pass a bill was purposely set higher in the Senate, precisely in order to prevent a narrow majority from imposing its will too easily, and to force some compromise in such cases. That's exactly what we see happening now. If you're a fan of the public option, it might seem a nuisance, but overall, I think it's a good, even necessary, provision, to ensure that a razor-thin majority can't impose extreme measures, or that impetuous ideas don't get pushed through in the heat of the moment.